<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font size="+2"><i><b>March 27, 2022</b></i></font><br>
</p>
<br>
<i>[ All climate models are imperfect, but some are useful. We will
always need climate models. ]</i><br>
<b>The Future of Climate Modeling?</b><br>
26 MAR 2022 -- BY GAVIN<br>
There was an interesting workshop last week focused on the Future of
Climate Modelling. It was run by the World Climate Research Program
(WCRP) Core Project on Earth System Modelling and Observations
(ESMO) which is part of a bewildering alphabet soup of various
advisory committees that exist for mostly unclear historical
reasons. This one actually does something useful – namely it helps
organize the CMIP activities that many modeling groups contribute to
(which inform the assessment reports like IPCC and various national
Climate Assessments). They had a wide variety of people and
perspectives to discuss the changing landscape of climate modeling
and what people want from these models. You won’t agree with
everything, but it was informative.<br>
<br>
The workshop was in four quite digestible chunks which are all on
Youtube<br>
<blockquote>Day 1 - <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://youtu.be/QEex28orbpM">https://youtu.be/QEex28orbpM</a><br>
Day 2 - <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://youtu.be/j1BHklM6CaM">https://youtu.be/j1BHklM6CaM</a><br>
Day 3 - <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://youtu.be/jOuCS3nkqvg">https://youtu.be/jOuCS3nkqvg</a><br>
Day 4 - <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://youtu.be/ZowWN22VmU8">https://youtu.be/ZowWN22VmU8</a> ...<br>
</blockquote>
The main themes were familiar – how should we prioritize new
activities (at the community level) given limited resources? Higher
resolution? More complexity? More initial condition ensembles? More
forcing ensembles? More perturbed parameter ensembles? More machine
learning? Better post-processing? All of the above in little bits?
In reality, these decisions are taken at the model group or national
or agency funding manager level, and not by international
committees, but the facilitating role the committees have can
increase the utility of the individual group contributions and guide
some choices. The tensions between these different directions has
existed for decades, but some of the new elements (the role of
AI/ML, the increased spread of ECS in CMIP6, the demonstrated
utility of Large Ensembles etc.) add some wrinkles to the
discussion.<br>
<br>
One new theme which hasn’t come up much before at this level, is the
carbon footprint of these activities – at the supercomputer centers,
but also the in-person workshop and international meetings that
until recently were commonplace. This was a virtual international
meeting with active participation from Asia, Australasia, Europe,
and the Americas which a few years ago would certainly have been
in-person, with a much smaller attendance and a much higher cost.
But whether this scales to the bigger meetings and how we can
provide the important mentoring/socializing/community
building/career aspects of the previous practice is as yet unclear.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/03/the-future-of-climate-modeling/">https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/03/the-future-of-climate-modeling/</a><br>
<i> [ Dr Gavin Schmidt is a top NASA scientist and main contributor
to the website RealClimate.org which tries to provide context and
background on climate science issues ]</i>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><i>[ written opinion and videos below discuss the challenge the
IPCC must face -- It must author a consensus document of one
voice that is actually composed by one hundred eighty (mostly)
men. Of course it will be milquetoast. It's like we are
children and our scout leadership is from 180 national
representatives - some of whom are good, and some who are
horrible criminals - but all their words must be combined into
an agreed statement delivered as a chorus of one voice -- Their
words come after months and years of negotiations about how to
address the heatwaves, fires, floods, storms and sea level rise
of global warming. Our world is changing so radically fast,
that for whatever the IPCC writes, just by their process they
are months behind -- even years behind the unfolding reality.
The IPCC may declare itself a trusted science oracle, but they
are worthless in commanding change. Maybe the IPCC has served
out its usefulness. ]</i><br>
</p>
<p>MARCH 25, 2022<br>
<b>The Truth About IPCC Reports</b><br>
BY ROBERT HUNZIKER<br>
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in many
respects, is a Delphic institution whose reports are a function of
political discretion as it provides justification for nation/state
policies that are seldom fulfilled, e.g., only a handful of the
193 signatory nations to Paris ’15 have met commitments. This
scandalous outright failure at a dicey time for the climate system
only serves to hasten loss of stability and integrity of the
planet’s most important ecosystems.<br>
<br>
That provocative depiction is examined in a recent Nick Breeze
ClimateGenn podcast interview: Existential Risk Management with
David Spratt, research director of the Breakthrough National
Centre for Climate Restoration in Melbourne. Dr. Spratt is highly
regarded for solid research, which is evidenced throughout his
refreshingly straightforward interview.<br>
<br>
Spratt’s interview tackles: (1) failings of the IPCC, (2) tipping
points, and (3) a nearly out of control global warming challenge
that’s not realistically understood, even as wobbly ecosystems
start to falter.<br>
<br>
The truth is the IPCC has been politicized to such an extent that
its reports unintentionally confuse public opinion whilst
misdirecting public policy issues for mitigation. At the center of
the issue the IPCC does not expose the full extent of existential
risk, which happens to be such an unthinkable event so hard to
accept that nobody believes it will ever really truly happen, more
on this later.<br>
<br>
During the interview a tipping point is discussed in the context
of reduction of Arctic summer sea ice to 3/4ths of its volume, as
the Arctic’s highly reflective ice melts into a dark background of
sea water that easily absorbs almost all of the incoming solar
radiation, in turn, absorbing warmth that would otherwise be
80%-90% reflected back to outer space via the long-standing albedo
effect of ice. In turn, a warming Arctic causes excessive warmth
to hit Greenland, which, according to Dr. Jason Box (professor in
glaciology at the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland) is
already “past the point of system stability,” meaning past a
tipping point of no return. Recently Box publicly warned of abrupt
climate change forthcoming. Meanwhile, Greenland’s melt releases
cold water into the Atlantic, in turn, slowing down the Atlantic
Gulf Stream, and, as follows, weakens Atlantic circulation that,
in turn, negatively impacts precipitation in the eastern Amazon.<br>
<br>
Like a series of dominoes falling one onto another, one initial
event (a) loss of Arctic sea ice brings (b) warmer Arctic waters
(c) cascading into more Greenland melt-off, causing (d) slower
Atlantic circulation, triggering (e) loss of precipitation for the
eastern Amazon. The net result because of one non-linear event,
i.e., loss of Artic sea ice triggers four additional major events.
Ipso facto, those five events reinforce each other for who knows
how long?<br>
<br>
According to Spratt: “So, we see that a change in one system,
i.e., Arctic ice volume echoes or has domino effects through other
systems,” which triggers a tipping point that, in fact, is already
at a seminal stage.<br>
<br>
Regarding the IPCC’s approach to risk, first it is important to
emphasize the fact that big risks must be the key to successful
climate change analysis. By definition, big risks are at the top
end of a range of possibilities. But, the IPCC does not see risks
that way. Their view is more generalized and this has become
normalized over the past 20 years, e.g., we have a 50% chance of
not exceeding 2°C with our current carbon budget. According to
Spratt: That is catastrophically wrong. That type of risk
assessment has been normalized now for 20 years in policy-making,
and “it is horribly wrong.”<br>
<br>
When risks are existential, and they clearly are in this
particular instance, everybody knows if it gets to the range of 3C
to 4C pre-industrial (and 60% of scientists say we’re already
headed for 3C plus) “we’ll destroy human civilization.”<br>
<br>
Therefore, when risks are existential, you can’t look at an
on-average analysis, rather, you must look at the worst possible
outcome as your primary calculation. It’s the only way to approach
an existential risk.<br>
<br>
In that regard and interestingly enough the foreword of the IPCC
report of a few years ago actually said: “Critical instances
calculating probabilities don’t matter. What matters is the
high-end possibility.”<br>
<br>
But nowadays a figure such as “50% probability introduces a
fundamental problem with the assessment process. More
realistically, the proper way to look at existential risks is by
stating x-amount of additional carbon has a 50% chance of reaching
2C but also has a 10% chance of 4C or in other words, a 50% chance
of staying below 2C is also a 10% chance of reaching 4C. Would you
take an elevator ride with a 10% chance of the cable breaking at
the 75th floor?<br>
<br>
When it comes to existential risks, the expectation should be:
“Why should we accept risks with the climate system that we would
not accept with our own lives?” They are really one in the same.<br>
<br>
Thus, the core of existential risk management must focus on the
high-end, not middling ranges of probability. The focus must be,
and this is an absolute: “What is the worst that can happen, and
what do we have to do to prevent it?”<br>
<br>
That assumption is not part of the latest IPCC report. When it
comes to non-linear responses of cascades, the IPCC says: “There
is no evidence of such non-linear responses at the global scaling
climate projections for the next century. But, according to
Spratt: “This is just wrong.”<br>
<br>
After all, “everybody knows, for example, that emissions from
permafrost are non-trivial at the moment. We know that warming in
the last decade has been higher than in previous decades and the
system is about to warm at an accelerating rate as major systems
are already changing state. And the IPCC says there is no evidence
of moving into non-linear climate change. This is absurd!”
(Spratt)<br>
<br>
Ipso facto, because of a badly misjudged bias, IPCC models can’t
deal with non-linear processes. As a result, they’re missing the
big picture by a country mile. And, mitigation policies, for what
that’s worth, are inadequate.<br>
<br>
Yet, according to Dr. Spratt: “The paleoclimate record tells us
that, in the long run, each one-degree of warming brings 10-20
meters (32- 66 feet) of sea level rise. Frankly, that would be a
legitimate statement for the IPCC, but they do not deal with
non-linear events.”<br>
<br>
All of which leads to inadvertent problems for policy makers
because people judge the IPCC report as pure science. “It is not.
The IPCC is a political body. Diplomats of 190 governments run the
IPCC. They appoint the lead authors for reports. The IPCC is the
intersection of policy and politics.” (Spratt)<br>
<br>
Meanwhile, as if misdirection by the IPCC is not enough of a
problem, change is happening so much faster than forecasts. For
example, early IPCC reports said Antarctica would be stable for a
thousand years. But, back in 2007, Richard Alley (Penn State) said
it’s already melting 100 years ahead of schedule.<br>
<br>
Of special concern in the near future, when the Arctic goes Full
Monty, a 100% ice-free summer, “it will drive changes that will be
unstoppable.” This existential risk is already capriciously
inconstant across the entire northern horizon.<br>
<br>
Furthermore, it’s already apparent to many scientists that we’ll
be at 1.5C a decade from now, regardless of emissions over the
next 10 years. In fact 1.5C around 2030 looks to be locked-in in
part because of the aerosol dilemma. If so, we’re only a decade
away from Hot House Earth becoming reality. Thenceforth, the
climate system will accelerate much faster than ever before.<br>
<br>
Fourteen years ago Spratt published a book Climate Code Red, which
codified the idea of a climate emergency by conceptually stating
that the climate problem could not be solved “with business as
usual.” (Footnote: It’s still business as usual, but bigger)<br>
<br>
A review of the book states: Climate Code Red: The Case for
Emergency Action is a 2008 book which presents scientific evidence
that the global warming crisis is worse than official reports and
national governments have so far indicated.<br>
<br>
Based upon this current interview, Spratt seems to indicate that
it is even worse (actually bigger) today than it was in 2008.<br>
<br>
To avert what looks to be an inevitable existential event requires
an enormous commitment of resources comparable to a wartime
economy with single-minded focus on climate policy, and it also
requires a major change in the way society works. Those are
awfully big requests, so one has to wonder what’s truly feasible.<br>
<br>
As things now stand current mitigation stems from the IPCC’s
embedded idea that there can be “incremental non-destructive
change as a solution… This will not work.” (Spratt)<br>
<br>
The harsh truth is global emissions are continuing to go up, as
all of the decarbonization efforts like wind, solar, electric
cars, and energy efficiency only serve to produce “more energy for
growth.” For example, if the global economy grows 2% per year and
2% of the energy system converts to renewables, then the same
amount of fossil fuel energy is used every year. That is a very
rough facsimile of what has been happening. Fossil fuel use as a
percentage of all energy is essentially the same today as 50 years
ago.<br>
<br>
Moreover, “there is no way that a system with ‘hands-off’
government, other than a few token regulations, and ‘the free
market deciding the outcome’ is going to work.” In fact, the
evidence is already telling us it does not work. Not even close.<br>
<br>
A true fixit requires overwhelmingly powerful political
leadership. In that regard, according to Spratt: “What I really
fear and my experience is that those in the elite, whether it’s in
business or in politics, simply, I think, do not understand the
problem as it really exists.”<br>
<br>
There’s a profound ignorance because of the IPCC telling a story
that incrementalism is a successful approach when it’s clearly
not.<br>
<br>
A collateral problem is a large segment of the professional
climate advocacy NGO community has been “swallowed by the whale,”
meaning they buy into the lame Conference of the Parties “COP”
meetings and swallow the corporate-origin net zero nonsense by
2050, over and over again, umm, but it’s too little too late,
horribly misdirected. Whereas, according to several scientists,
2030 is the deadly deadline, not incremental movement to 2050.<br>
<br>
The crux of the matter is that the most prominent existential risk
in human history does not conform to scientific models. It’s
almost always ahead of the scientific models, sometimes by several
decades. Then, why would it wait around for net zero by 2050?<br>
<br>
Robert Hunziker lives in Los Angeles and can be reached at
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:rlhunziker@gmail.com">rlhunziker@gmail.com</a>.</p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.counterpunch.org/2022/03/25/the-truth-about-ipcc-reports/">https://www.counterpunch.org/2022/03/25/the-truth-about-ipcc-reports/</a><br>
</p>
<p>- -</p>
<i>[ Podcast & video ]</i><br>
<b>David Spratt: Existential Risk Management</b><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://genn.cc/blog/david-spratt-existential-risk-management/">https://genn.cc/blog/david-spratt-existential-risk-management/</a><br>
<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<i>[ New episode from Nick Breeze - why incrementalism is failing
us ] </i><br>
<b>David Spratt | Cascading Tipping Points & Existential Risk
Management</b><br>
Mar 19, 2022<br>
Nick Breeze ClimateGenn<br>
In this ClimateGenn episode I am speaking with Research Director of
the Breakthrough National Centre for Climate Restoration in
Melbourne, David Spratt, about assessing climate risk and why
incremental tweaks to reduce emissions are failing us.<br>
<br>
Suppoort and get preview and extra material via
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://patreon.com/genncc">https://patreon.com/genncc</a> and at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://genn.cc">https://genn.cc</a><br>
<br>
We also discuss IPCC forecasts, political failure, and how change is
possible but it requires a huge mobilisation of resources, coupled
with public and political participation and leadership of the
Zelensky variety.<br>
<br>
The clock is ticking, parts of the system are tipping, whether you
call it: code-red, an emergency, or blah blah blah, no one is immune
from the cascade of climate impacts that we will face if we continue
to do nothing to avert the growing threat of climate change this
decade and into the future.<br>
<br>
Thanks for listening to ClimateGenn, especially at a time when there
is so much violence and the threat of escalation of war.<br>
<br>
The pain that this is causing so many is inextricably linked to
corruption and fossil fuels that extend well beyond Putin’s regime.
I would very much like to express solidarity with the Ukrainian
people, as well as with Russians who are standing up to the regime.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9wB0P3Y5d0">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9wB0P3Y5d0</a> (begins 1:30)<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[The news archive - looking back at a dis-informationist ]</i> <font
size="5"><b><br>
</b></font><font size="5"><b>March 27, 2007</b></font><br>
In a post on CallingAllWingnuts.com about a recent confrontation
with Competitive Enterprise Institute honcho Myron Ebell, blogger
Mike Stark observes:<br>
<blockquote>"Upon reflection, I really think there are a couple of
lessons for progressives to be found in this five minute exchange.<br>
<br>
"First of all, when arguing with somebody that either has no
credibility or is not arguing a credible position, don't donate
the credibility they need to be seen as your equal."<br>
<br>
"You see, by calling his credibility into question immediately -
and not letting him up for air - well, I've got no proof, but I
really think that everyone in the room knew that Mr. Ebell had
been bettered. When we ask policy or science questions of these
charlatans, we give the impression that we care what they think.
We don't. We know they are rank liars, we're just wondering if
they'll be able to spin a sufficient answer. But these guys get
millions of dollars a year from the largest corporate titans
precisely because they have the skill to ink up the issue. Why let
them show off?<br>
<br>
"Secondly, don't go out of your way to be nice or polite. Hell, I
won't afford these profit-gandists any respect on my blog, why the
hell should I do it face to face? A large part of their
professional career derives from their ability to mock me and the
things I believe in. The Competitive Enterprise Institute once
liked global warming to 'being invaded by space aliens' for
example. By addressing these people with the indignant scorn they
deserve, you project the moral superiority of your position. To
many times it seems that Democratic and progressive pundits are
more interested in being our opponents' friends than we are in
vigorously arguing the issues. In this media environment - when
equal time is given to global warming deniers... well, we just
can't afford the small talk.<br>
<br>
"In the end, these guys are not good people. This isn't a case of
principled people disagreeing. At this point in the global warming
debate, the only principled disagreements to be had revolve around
what we should be doing to address the crisis. The Myron Ebells of
the world - the die-hard denialists... well, we need to move them
off the stage by marginalizing them at every opportunity."<br>
</blockquote>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-stark/global-warming-phooey_b_44407.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-stark/global-warming-phooey_b_44407.html</a>
<br>
<br>
<p><br>
More information from daily summaries<br>
---------------------------------------<br>
Climate Nexus <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://climatenexus.org/hot-news/">https://climatenexus.org/hot-news/</a><br>
Delivered straight to your inbox every morning, Hot News
summarizes the most important climate and energy news of the day,
delivering an unmatched aggregation of timely, relevant reporting.
It also provides original reporting and commentary on climate
denial and pro-polluter activity that would otherwise remain
largely unexposed. 5 weekday<br>
<br>
=================================<br>
<br>
Carbon Brief Daily <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/newsletter-sign-up">https://www.carbonbrief.org/newsletter-sign-up</a><br>
Every weekday morning, in time for your morning coffee, Carbon
Brief sends out a free email known as the “Daily Briefing” to
thousands of subscribers around the world. The email is a digest
of the past 24 hours of media coverage related to climate change
and energy, as well as our pick of the key studies published in
the peer-reviewed journals.<br>
more at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.getrevue.co/publisher/carbon-brief">https://www.getrevue.co/publisher/carbon-brief</a><br>
<br>
==================================<br>
<br>
The Daily Climate Subscribe <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://ehsciences.activehosted.com/f/61">https://ehsciences.activehosted.com/f/61</a><br>
Get The Daily Climate in your inbox - FREE! Top news on climate
impacts, solutions, politics, drivers. Delivered week days. Better
than coffee.<br>
Other newsletters too<br>
more at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.dailyclimate.org/originals/">https://www.dailyclimate.org/originals/</a><br>
<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/</p>
<br>
/Archive of Daily Global Warming News <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/2017-October/date.html"
moz-do-not-send="true"><https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/2017-October/date.html></a>
/<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote</a><br>
<br>
/To receive daily mailings - click to Subscribe <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:subscribe@theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request"
moz-do-not-send="true"><mailto:subscribe@theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request></a>
to news digest./<br>
<br>
Privacy and Security:*This mailing is text-only. It does not
carry images or attachments which may originate from remote
servers. A text-only message can provide greater privacy to the
receiver and sender. This is a hobby production curated by Richard
Pauli<br>
By regulation, the .VOTE top-level domain cannot be used for
commercial purposes. Messages have no tracking software.<br>
To subscribe, email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated
moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:contact@theclimate.vote"
moz-do-not-send="true">contact@theclimate.vote</a> <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:contact@theclimate.vote" moz-do-not-send="true"><mailto:contact@theclimate.vote></a>
with subject subscribe, To Unsubscribe, subject: unsubscribe<br>
Also you may subscribe/unsubscribe at <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote</a><br>
Links and headlines assembled and curated by Richard Pauli for <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://TheClimate.Vote"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://TheClimate.Vote</a> <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://TheClimate.Vote/"
moz-do-not-send="true"><http://TheClimate.Vote/></a>
delivering succinct information for citizens and responsible
governments of all levels. List membership is confidential and
records are scrupulously restricted to this mailing list.<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>